"It was developed in the early history of video games" - I know you like to include this language as a way of tying this early game articles into the parent article, but in this case it feels really forced. These two were not even thinking about "video games" or entertainment; they just thought it would be cool if computers were smart enough to play chess.

It feels like there is a little bit of historical context missing here. Turing started pondering the concept of mechanizing the play of chess in conversation with Jack Good in 1941 while they were at Bletchley Park together and came up with many of the principles he would later incorporate into Turochamp such as assigning points to pieces and having the program analyze moves through the lens of decision trees and minimaxing. In 1943, he began refining his ideas with Donald Michie, who later created Machiavelli. He and Champernowne also had discussions on the matter in 1944. As written, the article does not give any indication that he had thought much about computers and chess before 1946.

"After the initial recreation was unable to recreate Turing's simulated match against Glennie, several computer chess experts and contemporaries of Turing were consulted" - You tell the beginning of this story, but not the resolution of it, which is that they determined the "errors" were not found within the program but within Turing's attempt to do all the calculation by hand.

There may be one or two additional grammatical things to look at, which I can take the liberty of correcting myself, but those are the three major issues I see. None of them are too large, however, so I will place this nomination On hold while concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Indrian: Ok, I've now addressed these three points, I think, so this is ready for another look. Thanks! --PresN 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)